Doing research that will result in cheap drugs that save millions of lives throughout the world is not a silly idea. It may not be a profitable idea, but "silly" and "not profitable" are not synonyms.
Ideas should be funded voluntarily by the people who believe in them, not by forcing people who do not agree to pay for them.
Or do you have some idea of how we can determine whose ideas are best and convince everyone else? If you can't convince others your ideas have merit, then you're on your own. You have no more right to coerce others to pay for your ideas than they have to coerce you to pay for theirs.
I began using a 3-button optical ADB mouse with a Mac back around 1990. Of course it was running A/UX, but the mouse was actually designed for and worked with System 6 or System 7. When Apple moved to a USB keyboard I began using the single-button mouse with no regrets. Now at work (on a Mac) I use a Logitech scroll mouse, but at home I use an Apple Pro mouse when I (rarely) use a desktop or my Powerbook without a mouse.
I don't have any problem at all moving back and forth, and in fact don't even notice it. Conditioning, I guess.
Which search is unreasonable?
Regulating your mental state by any means (where is that listed?) does not include infringing the rights of others.
Who's restricting your right to control your bodily fluids?
You have no right not to be discrriminated against.
You have no right to dignity (or respect from others). You have to earn it.
I don't know... in more civilized law systems some rights are upheld EVEN if you signed them away.
That's why they are called "unalienable", you know.
Which unalienable right do you think might have been signed away? And anyway the question of whether one can give up an unalienable right is open; there are arguments on both sides. "Unaliienable" simply means it can't be taken away, not that it can't be given away.
...regardless of the fact that my opinion is genuine, based on experience, and factually correct.
Genuine and based on experience, perhaps; but also contrary to the opnion of many other experienced professionals, so hardly can be considered "factually correct".
A belief, no matter strongly held, does not constitute fact. And the fact that a large number of people disagree with you -- even if an even larger number happen to agree with you -- makes the likelihood of your opinion being fact somewhat suspect. It's of course possible that your opinion is correct, but it is also a fact that stating your opinion as a fact is a clear error.
Quit being so god damn picky, so it was in AAC not MP3 the point is still valid and accurate nitpicky dumbass moron. Yes flamebait was intentional and it was deserved for the sheer stupidity.
The mistake was yours, not his. Typically it is the one who makes the mistake who can legitimately claim the "stupid" title. Why get so upset? And assuming that you were talking about AAC files, which non-Apple AAC players were made to crash by the free AAC files? I must have missed that.
Why should the original author be the only one to complain about it. Sure, he's got a much larger precidence over the users...but all of us are getting neglected major code contributions that could have helped the community instead of one person or company's pocket book.
I don't think you said what you wanted to say, but I do think I understand what you intended. I suppose my questions would be: "What expectations should the community have for contributions from others?"; and "Why should they have those expectations?"; and "Would the compensation they provide for those contributions be at their pleasure?"
I think there might be a few difficulties with your line of thought here.
Gee, sorry you're having such a bad day. It'll all be better soon. If you really think Apple will put out a replacement for their top-end G5 boxes that can't match or beat their floating point performance, then perhaps you really should leave now. The excitement is likely to be too much for you.
Cool. Come back and talk to us in a couple of years and tell us how you correctly predicted Apple's demise way back in 2005. Or not. Picking hardware that doesn't match your job is your fault and no one else's. Perhaps you have a bit to learn about making purchasing decisions. Or perhaps you were brainwashed by those evil marketing reps? Poor guy. Maybe you should sue them.
Apple getting dumped by IBM is going to put a quick end to the iPod fad.
In a year Apple is going to be struggling to survive as just another overpriced x86 OEM. Media companies know this, are going to start distancing themselves quietly and looking for new partners to take Apple place over the next year or two as revenues/profits start to dry up.
It was fun while it lasted, but Steve's tempertantrum/unwillingness to pay for a mobile PPC chip is going to be the death of the company over the next couple of years.
Before there was a "War Machine" which got any funding at all, most technological advances were associated with weaponry and man's desire to kill the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. That might not fit with your world view, but it's true. Could indicate a flaw in the world view.
But more beneficial would be allocating funds away from the War Machine and instead towards the Innovation Machine.
You might want to consider that a little longer. Ever since Ogg the caveman picked up the first rock to improve his chances in a dispute with the guy in the next cave a rather large percentage of technological advances have come about because of their utility to the War Machine. Attempts to build a comparable Innovation Machine have been largely unsuccessful.
For those who may not have noticed, there is usually more than one "Free Download of the Week". Check down at the lower right of the main page and there will usually be at least three listings for free songs -- one of them is usually a mix or something which will stay around for multiple weeks, the others are one-week only.
Exactly, it is quite simple actually, it all involves money.
I wouldn't say that it all involves money. I think that many people "overlook" data which contradicts their beliefs -- political or otherwise. Do you think it was money that kept Larry Summers' listeners from jumping in to find answers to the questions he raised?
There is plenty of evidence out there to support the human mind's limitless potential.
No, there's not. There is none. It doesn't exist. Nothing has limitless potential whether the human mind or anything else.
If you would care to continue this discussion in a more private forum, let me know. I have plenty of information I can provide you but this is not the place for it. Take it from me: you are wrong. You will not find anything anywhere in the way of a reliable (i.e., scientific) source which supports your position. I happen to have been rather successful in acquiring knowledge, and I didn't get that way by deluding myself. My native intelligence was a great help in that; it would not have been possible without that. I would prefer not to pursue that here; again, if you would like to pursue it in private I'd be happy to oblige.
What is happening here is we're straying from the main idea: that people have unlimited potential for intelligence.
We're not straying from the main idea: you say that people have unlimited potential for intelligence; I say that they do not. That is the main point, and we haven't strayed from it.
I guess I'm confused, though, why someone would feel so strongly otherwise.
I confess to being strongly prejudiced in favor of fact and against nonsense.
Why would you believe that you cannot achieve something?
Because I believe in demonstrated statistical evidence.
Why would you believe another person cannot achieve something?
In many cases, because it's self-evident.
Isn't this a self-defeating attitude?
No. It's realism. You are free to believe what you will. If you try to convince me that your beliefs have any validity, however, you will need to provide stronger evidence for your view than I have for mine. So far you have done nothing except spout platitudes. Like these, for example:
I believe the mind is limitless, but that doesn't make me stupid. Everybody has roadblocks in life that they have to overcome. Some are physical. If I'm too short, well, I'm pretty much out-of-luck. What is great about my mind, however, is that I can become tall because of the special nature of the mind. Even if a part of my brain is broken, my mind can still expand. And so can yours.
To continue:
Outside of standard troll behavior, why do you feel the belittle me during your arguments? Is there something about this idea that threatens you somehow?
Because I am offended by people who can't see how baseless their positions are. I made much the same statement as the preceding as "my biggest peeve" when I was interviewed for my high school paper almost 50 years ago.
I have given you a couple of sources which flatly contradict your position. You have neither given me any which support your position, nor anything to counter the sources which I gave. Which leaves us where we were earlier. You are strongly advocating the truth of your statements with absolutely nothing to support them. You're in graduate school and you still haven't learned how to present your case? Astonishing. Or perhaps not.
As far as mixing my terms, consider this: intelligence is made up of two major factors, and I don't think these are in dispute: 1. acquision of knowledge, and 2. application of knowledge.
I think they're in dispute. There is very little component of knowledge in intelligence. If you have a higher degree of intelligence, it makes it easier to acquire knowledge. That is the sole connection. If you maintain otherwise, cite a source.
You will need to provide proof that IQ is fixed as an adult for me to accept it. I can directly observe that I get better at both aquiring and applying knowledge after my education, and I see this improvement in other people as well, so I'm relatively sure I'm not entirely a freak of nature.
Proof is widely available if you look for it. There have been many studies, and they all contradict your belief. Your observation that you are better at both acquiring and applying knowledge after your education is possibly valid. It's as valid as saying that someone who has never trained is a better jogging after acquiring training. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. I could lose karma for saying it, but your pursuit of this question is itself coming close to demonstrating that intelligence is not equally distribuited.
It is possible to increase your "g" factor slightly by various means, just as it is possible through regular exercise to improve your physical conditioning through diet and exercise. The improvement is very limited, however.
Forget all the nonsense about "emotional IQ" and other such. There are many reputable studies. I wouldn't put forth Scientific American as a valid source, but here's a link to a starting point taken from SA:
Slashdot Mirror
Or do you have some idea of how we can determine whose ideas are best and convince everyone else? If you can't convince others your ideas have merit, then you're on your own. You have no more right to coerce others to pay for your ideas than they have to coerce you to pay for theirs.
I don't have any problem at all moving back and forth, and in fact don't even notice it. Conditioning, I guess.
Touchy. Also clueless.
Which search is unreasonable?
Regulating your mental state by any means (where is that listed?) does not include infringing the rights of others.
Who's restricting your right to control your bodily fluids?
You have no right not to be discrriminated against.
You have no right to dignity (or respect from others). You have to earn it.
You have no natural right to what you want. Sorry. You don't have it and you never will.
inalienable - adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.
A belief, no matter strongly held, does not constitute fact. And the fact that a large number of people disagree with you -- even if an even larger number happen to agree with you -- makes the likelihood of your opinion being fact somewhat suspect. It's of course possible that your opinion is correct, but it is also a fact that stating your opinion as a fact is a clear error.
I think there might be a few difficulties with your line of thought here.
Gee, sorry you're having such a bad day. It'll all be better soon. If you really think Apple will put out a replacement for their top-end G5 boxes that can't match or beat their floating point performance, then perhaps you really should leave now. The excitement is likely to be too much for you.
Cool. Come back and talk to us in a couple of years and tell us how you correctly predicted Apple's demise way back in 2005. Or not. Picking hardware that doesn't match your job is your fault and no one else's. Perhaps you have a bit to learn about making purchasing decisions. Or perhaps you were brainwashed by those evil marketing reps? Poor guy. Maybe you should sue them.
How much extra for the leather binding? Does that add to the shipping weight?
Before there was a "War Machine" which got any funding at all, most technological advances were associated with weaponry and man's desire to kill the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. That might not fit with your world view, but it's true. Could indicate a flaw in the world view.
For those who may not have noticed, there is usually more than one "Free Download of the Week". Check down at the lower right of the main page and there will usually be at least three listings for free songs -- one of them is usually a mix or something which will stay around for multiple weeks, the others are one-week only.
Note that every one of those keys is searchable (not directly from Spotlight, but from the search function or the command line).
It's hopeless. You're beyond help. I'll stop trying.
If you would care to continue this discussion in a more private forum, let me know. I have plenty of information I can provide you but this is not the place for it. Take it from me: you are wrong. You will not find anything anywhere in the way of a reliable (i.e., scientific) source which supports your position. I happen to have been rather successful in acquiring knowledge, and I didn't get that way by deluding myself. My native intelligence was a great help in that; it would not have been possible without that. I would prefer not to pursue that here; again, if you would like to pursue it in private I'd be happy to oblige.
I have given you a couple of sources which flatly contradict your position. You have neither given me any which support your position, nor anything to counter the sources which I gave. Which leaves us where we were earlier. You are strongly advocating the truth of your statements with absolutely nothing to support them. You're in graduate school and you still haven't learned how to present your case? Astonishing. Or perhaps not.
Forget all the nonsense about "emotional IQ" and other such. There are many reputable studies. I wouldn't put forth Scientific American as a valid source, but here's a link to a starting point taken from SA:
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/int elligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
In addition, here's a link with some comments on "The Bell Curve": http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
How about some sources for your view that improvement in mental capacity is unbounded?